alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. _________________

 v. : DATE FILED: September 1, 2005

CHRISTOPHER DENNING : VIOLATIONS: 

18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)

 (using interstate

communications to seduce a

minor - 1 count)

18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)

 (travel with intent to engage

in illicit sexual conduct - 1

count)

Notice of forfeiture

I N D I C T M E N T

COUNT ONE

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:

From on or about December 15, 2004, to on or about August 4, 2005, in

Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant

CHRISTOPHER DENNING

used and attempted to use facilities and means of interstate commerce, that is the Internet, and

attempted to persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual who had not yet attained the age

of 18 years to engage in sexual activity for which a person could be charged with a criminal

offense. 

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b).

Case 2:05-cr-00498-BMS Document 15 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 4
2

COUNT TWO

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:

On or about August 4, 2005, in Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant

CHRISTOPHER DENNING

traveled and attempted to travel from Virginia to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for the purpose of

engaging in illicit sexual conduct with another person.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b), (e).

Case 2:05-cr-00498-BMS Document 15 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 4
3

NOTICE OF FORFEITURE

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:

1. As a result of the violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and

2423(b) set forth in this indictment, defendant

CHRISTOPHER DENNING

shall forfeit to the United States of America any property, real or personal, used or intended to be

used to commit or to promote the commission of such offenses including, but not limited to,

computers, monitors, cables, computer floppy discs/cd roms, modems, routers, and digital

cameras seized from defendant’s home and automobile.

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253(a)(3).

2. If any of the property subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of the

defendant:

(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

(b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or

(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided

without difficulty;

Case 2:05-cr-00498-BMS Document 15 Filed 09/01/05 Page 3 of 4
4

it is the intent of the United States, to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to

the value of the property subject to forfeiture. 

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253(o). 

A TRUE BILL:

 

FOREPERSON 

 

PATRICK L. MEEHAN

United States Attorney

Case 2:05-cr-00498-BMS Document 15 Filed 09/01/05 Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.1

                        STOCK OPTION SURRENDER AGREEMENT
                                      AND
            AMENDMENT TO ALL SENIOR EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT(S)

         Each of the undersigned ("Senior Executives") of Integrated Healthcare
Holdings, Inc. ("Company") have been employed pursuant to certain substantially
similar written agreements, each of which is entitled "Employment Agreement."
Each Employment Agreement contains a provision ("Stock Option Provision"),
purportedly permitting the purchase of the Company's common stock, which states:

                  "STOCK OPTIONS. The Company will grant Executive, effective as
         of the Commencement Date, an option to purchase [a specific number] of
         the company's class A common stock, .001 value per share, at a price of
         the mean average per share for 10 days following the Commencement Date.
         This option will be for a period of [a specific number of] years and
         will vest at the rate of [a specific number] % on each anniversary of
         this Agreement. Executive shall receive additional stock options
         annually if certain Company goals are met. Additional information
         regarding Company's stock option plan shall be provided."

         Each of the undersigned Senior Executives has concluded and agrees that
it is in each of the Senior Executive's and the Company's best interest for each
Senior Executive to surrender and renounce any and all rights (if any) each
Senior Executive may have pursuant to the Stocks Option Provision or any other
provision in their respective Employment Agreements.

         Therefore, each of the undersigned Senior Executives surrenders and
renounces any and all rights (if any) each Senior Executive may have pursuant to
the Stock Option Provision or any other provision in their respective Employment
Agreement, subject to and effective upon the execution of this Agreement by each
and all of the undersigned Senior Executives.

         This Agreement shall NOT be enforceable, however, as to any of the
Undersigned Senior Executives until and unless all the Senior Executives execute
this Agreement. At such time as this Agreement has been executed by each of the
undersigned Senior Executives, without further action or writing, each of their
respective Employment Agreements shall be deemed to have been amended to delete
the Stock Option Provision or any other provision which might be construed to
give a Senior Executive any Stock Option rights in the Company's Stock.


Executed on August 3, 2006                   Executed on Aug 5th, 2006

By: /s/ Dr. Anil Shah                        By: /s/ Hari S. Lal
    ---------------------------------            -------------------------------
    Dr. Anil Shah                                Hari S. Lal



Executed on August 4, 2006                   Executed on July 13, 2006

By: /s/ Bruce Mogel                          By: /s/ Larry B. Anderson
    ---------------------------------            -------------------------------
    Bruce Mogel                                  Larry B. Anderson
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order Granting Defendant’s Third Request for an EOT to file a MSJ

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

JAMES E. FLYNN

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

MARIA G. CHAN, State Bar No. 192130

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 323-1940

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendant Runnels

SA2004103389

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTIAGO SOTO,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. L. RUNNELS,

Defendant.

NO. CIV S-04-0571 FCD GGH P

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S THIRD

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE A MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Runnels’ third request for an extension of time to file a motion for summary

judgment was considered by the Court, and good cause appearing, Defendant’s request is

granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall have until October 16, 2005 to file a

motion for summary judgment. There will be no further extension of time.

DATED: 10/04/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

United States Magistrate Judge

soto0571.po3

Case 2:04-cv-00571-FCD-GGH Document 36 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

G. PATRICK JENNINGS

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 683 OK/HAV

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044-0683

Telephone: (202) 307-6648

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GARNAS & RABE CONSTRUCTION, )

INC., )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. )

 )

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL )

REVENUE, )

 )

Respondent. )

 )

Case No. CIV-S-04-0536 DFL KJM

STIPULATION, REQUEST FOR

ORDER, and (proposed) ORDER

AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiff Garnas & Rabe Construction, Inc., and defendant, the United States of

America, improperly named as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, by undersigned

counsel, hereby request an order extending the dates set forth in the Scheduling Order filed

September 9, 2004. This extension is requested because the parties are engaged in settlement

discussions. Furthermore, there appears at this time to be no disputes between the parties as to

the material facts in this case, so that if an agreement cannot be obtained, a dispositive motion

is likely to resolve this matter. 

 The parties request an order as follows:

Dispositive Motion filing deadline: August 26, 2005;

Hearing date for dispositive motions: October 5, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.;

Case 2:04-cv-00536-DFL -KJM Document 10 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

Joint pretrial statement to be filed by: November 23, 2005;

Pretrial Conference: December 2 , 2005 at 2:00 p.m.; 

Court Trial (est. 2–3 days): January 23, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

All other provisions of the September 9, 2004, Scheduling Order remain

in effect.

 The parties agree and request an order in accordance with the foregoing.

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

Dated: May 4, 2005 /s/ G. Patrick Jennings 

G. Patrick Jennings

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 683

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 307-6648

Dated: May 4, 2005 /s/ Spencer T. Malysiak (authorized on May 4, 2005)

SPENCER T. MALYSIAK,

SPENCER T. MALYSIAK LAW CORPORATION

1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 145B

Folsom, CA 95630

Attorneys for Petitioner Garnas & Rabe Constr., Inc.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 7/6/ 2005 /s/ David F. Levi 

DAVID F. LEVI

U.S. District Court Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00536-DFL -KJM Document 10 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 59505.

protest 244250-K (New York).

#### Alfred Kohlberg, Inc. *v.*United States,

*327Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATIONS I,
Thomas Paulson, certify that: 1.I
have reviewed this Form 10-K of Innovex Inc.; 2.Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report; 4.The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a)Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b)Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and (c)Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5.The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a)All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and (b)Any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date:  December 10, 2003 /s/ Thomas PaulsonThomas PaulsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer


---
Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of IEH Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ending March 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Offerman,
President (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, respectfully certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of the section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


Dated:  June 27, 2007

/s/ Michael Offerman
Michael Offerman
President (Principal Executive Officer)





                                      -47-
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 17, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D24

- 0 2 3 2 Lower Tribunal No. F1 5

- 4909

________________


### John L atham , Appellant,

vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Zachary James , Judge. John Latham , in proper person. Ashley Moody , Attorney General, for appellee.

Befor e EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR , JJ. PER CURIAM.2 Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853 (b) (requiring that a motion for postconviction DNA testing contain, inter alia : a statement that the evidence was not previously tested for DNA, that the results of previous DNA testing were inconclusive and that subsequent scientific developments in DNA testing techniques likely would produce a definitive result establishing that the movant is not the person who committed the crime; a statement that the movant is innocent an d how the DNA testing requested by the motion will exonerate the movant of the crime for which the movant was sentenced, or a statement how the DNA testing will mitigate the sentence received by the movant for that crime; and a statement that identificatio n of the movant is a genuinely disputed issue in the case and why it is an issue or an explanation of how the DNA evidence would either exonerate the defendant or mitigate the sentence that the movant received). See also Bates v. State , 3 So. 3d 1091, 109 8 (Fla. 2009) (“ [A] defendant's motion must explain how the DNA testing requested will exonerate the defendant or mitigate the defendant's sentence. A defendant's motion ‘ is facially sufficient with regard to the exoneration issue if the alleged facts demo nstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have been acquitted if the DNA evidence
had been admitted at trial

. ’ Knighten v. State , 829 So. 2d 249, 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). ‘ The clear requirement of [the] provisions [of rule 3.853] is that3 a movant .

. . must lay out with specificity how the DNA testing of each item requested to be tested would give rise to a reasonable probability of acquittal
or a lesser sentence. ’ Hitchcock v. State , 866 So. 2d 23, 27 (Fla. 2004). Further, ‘ the movant must demonstrate the nexus between the potential results of DNA testing on each piece of evidence and the issues in the case. ’
Id. ”) (emphasis added)

.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE NORMAN and EDITH HILL TRUST,

PAIMAN RAHBARIAN,

 Defendants.

CIV. S-04-699 LKK PAN 

ORDER

—NFN—

On March 16, 2005, this court directed counsel for

defendant Paiman Rahbarian to provide, within 20 days, verified

answers to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories without

objection or claim of privilege. The court warned that failure

to comply with the order would result in the imposition of severe

sanctions that might include entry of default judgment against

defendant. 

////

Case 2:04-cv-00699-LKK -PAN Document 32 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

On April 12, plaintiff notified the court that

defendant’s counsel had “not responded to the order in any

fashion.” 

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the default of

defendant Paiman Rahbarian pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

Plaintiff shall, within 20 days, file and serve a motion

for judgment against defendant Paiman Rahbarian pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). 

So ordered.

Dated: June 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00699-LKK -PAN Document 32 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2
TXI Three Year Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.14 
 TEXAS INDUSTRIES, INC. 
 THREE-YEAR INCENTIVE PLAN 
 adopted pursuant to the 
 MASTER
PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Three Year Incentive Plan is adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors pursuant to the
Texas Industries, Inc. Master Performance-Based Incentive Plan (“Master Incentive Plan”). This Three-Year Incentive Plan is subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Master Incentive Plan. Terms not defined in this Three-Year
Incentive Plan have the same meanings as in the Master Incentive Plan. Amendments and exceptions to this Three-Year Incentive Plan may be made only in the manner provided in the Master Incentive Plan. 
  

	1.	Performance Period 

 The three fiscal years
beginning June 1, 2008 and ending May 31, 2011. 
  

	2.	Participants 

 Participants are recommended by
management of the Company and approved by the Compensation Committee. 
  

	3.	Minimum Award Goal 

 Achievement of an Award is
dependent on attainment of a three year consolidated average return-on-equity for the Performance Period (“ROE”) equal to or greater than 14%. 
  

	4.	ROE Calculation 

 ROE is the average of the net
income of the Company as a percentage of the average shareholders’ equity of the Company for each fiscal year in the Performance Period, based on the net income and shareholders’ equity reported to shareholders in the Company’s
consolidated financial statements for periods included in the Performance Period, rounded to the nearest one-tenth (1/10) of one percent (1%). A fiscal year’s “average shareholders’ equity” is the average of its four fiscal
quarters’ shareholders’ equity. A “fiscal quarter’s shareholders’ equity” is the sum of its beginning and ending balances divided by two. 
  

	5.	Award Calculation 

 The amount of an Award is based
on the Company’s three year average ROE for the Performance Period, and is calculated by multiplying a Participant’s base 








 
salary on the last day of the Performance Period by the applicable Award Percentage shown in the schedule in Section 6. Individuals who become
Participants during the Performance Period will have their Award pro-rated in six month increments (i.e., participation for an increment of less than six months will not be included in the calculation) for the amount of time they participated prior
to the end of the Performance Period, with a six (6) month minimum participation requirement for eligibility for payment of an Award. 
  

	6.	Award Schedule 

 Three-Year Incentive Plan

 For The Three Consecutive Fiscal Year Period 
 ENDING MAY 31, 2011 
  

			
	 Three-Year Average ROE
	  	Award Percentage (% of Base Salary)
	 Less than 14%
	  	0%
	 14% to less than 16%
	  	50%
	 16% to less than 18%
	  	70%
	 18% to less than 20%
	  	100%
	 20% and above
	  	140%

 The President and Chief Executive Officer’s Award Percentage will be double that shown in the
schedule above. 
  

 Page 2
**Part 1&2		Fiscal Year 2016 & 17 Reporting**

**SUPPLEMENT 		Section III**

**Bulletin No. 2016-XX		IRC Handout 4/21/16****IRC Handout 4/21/16**
Appropriations Used/Expended – Accrued vs. Disbursed 

For USSGL Board

May 2020

1

Breaking out the BETC (Phase 1)

Federal entities have not been provided the necessary Business Event Type Codes (BETCs) to report the types of funding sources used in gross disbursements leading to an increased risk of reporting incorrect data on the Schedules of the General Fund of the United States (The Schedules). 

Created BETCs to provide more detailed classifications of disbursement transactions, which differentiate between gross disbursements of appropriations derived from the General Fund of the U.S. Government (General Fund) versus gross disbursements of appropriations and other budget authorities not derived from the General Fund.

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

The general ledger of the General Fund is derived using the information entered in CARS via mapping rules. (i.e. TAS/BETC = USSGL).

Does DISGF = a USSGL ? 

Currently if accounts payable is recorded (no CARS activity) or if a disbursement is being made and a BETC is being recorded in CARS, the USSGL used is 310700. 

In order to ensure that DISGF in CARS agrees with USSGL usage a breakout in the current 310700  is needed:

310700 – Unexpended Appropriations Used – Accrued

310710 – Unexpended Appropriations Used - Disbursed

Logical Ties (Phase 2)

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

3

Breaking out USSGL 310700 between disbursed and accrued allows certain appropriations used information to be fed to the General Fund through CARS:

310700 – Unexpended Appropriations Used – Accrued

Used when BETCs are not being reported in CARS (No BETC)

General Fund will receive these balances via quarterly entity submission form

310710 – Unexpended Appropriations Used – Disbursed

Used when DISGF BETC is being reported in CARS

Entities will no longer have to provide this information when they are using the DISGF BETC

This also creates the tie point highlighted earlier: 

DISGF = 310710

Breaking out the USSGL

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

The same logic applies to USSGL 570000 Expended Appropriations:

570000 – Expended Appropriations – Accrued

570010 – Expended Appropriations – Disbursed 

Reciprocal USSGLs (GF USSGLs) broken out as well.

Impact on Reciprocal Categories?

Other Side of the Entry

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

RC 38

Entity 570000

Entity 570010

RC 39

Entity 310700 

Entity 310710

GF 570006

GF 570005

GF 320710

GF 320700

General Fund Mailbox

GeneralFund@fiscal.treasury.gov

General Fund of the U.S. Government

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

6

# image1.png

# image3.png

# image8.png
# sec5_scnp_2022

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2022-12	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SCNP - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2022